A Rule 35 examination is a physical or mental evaluation that a federal court can order a party to a lawsuit to undergo, performed by a licensed professional, when that party’s medical condition is genuinely disputed and the requesting side has shown a real need for it. Because the process involves someone’s body and private medical information, Rule 35 examinations carry stricter procedural protections than ordinary discovery like interrogatories or document requests. If you’ve been served with a motion for one, or you’re thinking about asking for one, the rules below set the limits on what can happen and what you’re entitled to in return.
When a Court Can Order an Examination
A judge cannot order you to be examined just because a lawsuit involves an injury. Two things have to be true at once: your physical or mental condition must be “in controversy,” and the party asking for the exam must show “good cause” for the specific examination they want.
The Supreme Court defined both terms in Schlagenhauf v. Holder. Vague allegations in the pleadings don’t satisfy the standard. The party seeking the examination has to affirmatively show that the condition is “really and genuinely in controversy” and that good cause supports the particular exam being requested.1Justia Law. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) Broad medical workups don’t get rubber-stamped simply because someone was in an accident.
“In controversy” is usually easy to establish for a plaintiff who claims specific injuries and seeks damages for them. The lawsuit itself puts the condition at issue. It gets harder when the person hasn’t affirmatively raised their own medical status. A defendant in a car accident case doesn’t put their eyesight in controversy just by denying fault; the other side would need concrete evidence that a vision problem actually contributed to the crash before a court would order an eye exam.1Justia Law. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964)
“Good cause” means the information can’t reasonably be gathered through less intrusive discovery. If the same medical facts are available from existing treatment records or from depositions of treating doctors, a court may deny the motion. The standard reflects a deliberate balance: the requesting party’s need for objective medical evidence against the examinee’s privacy and bodily integrity.
Who Can Be Ordered to Submit
Rule 35 reaches any party to the lawsuit. That includes plaintiffs seeking injury-based damages and defendants who have put their own medical condition at issue. The Supreme Court confirmed that the rule applies to defendants as well as plaintiffs, and that applying it to defendants is constitutional.1Justia Law. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964)
The rule also reaches beyond named parties in one specific situation. A court can order a party to produce for examination a person who is in that party’s custody or under their legal control. The common example is a parent suing on behalf of an injured child: the parent is the named party, but the child’s condition is what matters. The obligation isn’t absolute. A party ordered to produce someone else only has to make good-faith efforts; they’re not guarantors of the person’s appearance.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations
How the Order Gets Issued
A court-ordered examination requires a formal motion, filed on notice to every party and to the person who will be examined. The motion has to demonstrate both prongs: that the condition is in controversy, and that good cause supports the specific exam.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations The judge is supposed to make an individualized determination for each request, not treat the motion as routine.
If granted, the order has to spell out the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, along with the identity of the examiner.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations That level of detail lets the examinee know exactly what will happen and object before the exam if the scope is too broad or the conditions are unfair.
Agreed Examinations
You don’t need a court order if the parties agree. Attorneys negotiate exam terms regularly without involving the judge. One warning: the report-exchange and privilege-waiver provisions of Rule 35 still apply to agreed examinations unless the written agreement specifically says otherwise.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations Agreeing to an exam without addressing those provisions means you’re bound by them just as if a judge had ordered the exam.
Repeat Examinations
Nothing in the rule caps the number of examinations at one. A second or later evaluation of the same person has to clear the same “in controversy” and “good cause” hurdles.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations Courts scrutinize repeat requests more carefully, but changed circumstances like a worsening condition or new medical evidence can justify another round.
Who Can Perform the Exam
The rule calls for a “suitably licensed or certified examiner,” which is broader than just medical doctors. The category was expanded to include licensed clinical psychologists, dentists, occupational therapists, and other certified professionals who may be well-qualified for the particular condition in dispute.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations The examiner’s credentials have to match the condition. A dentist can examine a jaw injury. A neuropsychologist can evaluate a traumatic brain injury claim. The court has discretion to reject a proposed examiner whose qualifications don’t fit.
What You’re Entitled To at the Examination
The court order sets the outer limits of what the examiner can do. The evaluation has to stay inside the scope the order defines and focus on the disputed condition, not wander into unrelated areas of your health or into the facts of the lawsuit itself. The court can also build in protective conditions on request.
Having an Attorney or Representative Present
Federal courts have been largely uniform in denying requests to bring an attorney into a Rule 35 exam. As of early 2026, nothing in the rule requires that the person examined be accompanied by a representative.3United States Courts. Rules Suggestion 26-CV-1 – Proposed Amendment to Rule 35 If you want someone with you, you have to ask the court to write that into the order as a condition, and the judge can grant or refuse the request.
Recording the Exam
There’s no default right to record either. Federal district courts generally bar recording devices unless the party asking to record shows good cause.3United States Courts. Rules Suggestion 26-CV-1 – Proposed Amendment to Rule 35 Mental health evaluations face the highest bar, because the argument that recording would interfere with the examination carries the most weight there. If recording matters to you, raise it before the order issues, not on the day of the exam.
The Report, and the Privilege Trap That Comes With It
After the exam, you have the right to request a detailed written report from the examiner. The report must include findings, diagnoses, conclusions, and the results of every test performed, and the requesting party also has to turn over reports from any earlier examinations of the same condition.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations Once you make the request, delivery isn’t optional on their end.
This is where people get caught. Requesting and receiving that report triggers a waiver of your medical privilege for the same condition. Once you obtain the report, or depose the examiner, you waive any privilege you had over testimony about every examination of that same condition, in the current case and in any other case involving the same dispute.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations The other side can then call your treating physicians to testify about that condition, and you can’t block them with doctor-patient privilege. The waiver is limited to the specific condition examined, not your entire medical history, but within that condition it reaches every exam, past and future.
This creates a real strategic choice. You want to know what the examiner concluded, but asking for the report opens the door to your own treating records on that condition. Talk the tradeoff through with your attorney before requesting anything.
What Happens If You Refuse
Ignoring a Rule 35 order has serious consequences under Rule 37, though not the full menu available for other discovery violations. A court can impose sanctions including:
- Treating the medical facts the requesting party claims as established.
- Barring you from supporting or opposing specific claims, or from introducing certain evidence.
- Striking all or part of your pleadings.
- Staying the case until you comply.
- Dismissing a plaintiff’s case or entering default judgment against a defendant in the most extreme situations.
- Ordering you or your attorney to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified.
One important carve-out: a court cannot hold you in contempt specifically for refusing a physical or mental examination. Rule 37 explicitly exempts Rule 35 orders from the contempt sanction.4Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions The reasoning is that physically compelling a medical exam raises different constitutional concerns than compelling document production. The other sanctions, especially dismissal and default, are usually severe enough on their own that refusing an exam is rarely a winning strategy.
When the order required you to produce someone else, the same sanctions apply, but you can avoid them by showing you genuinely couldn’t produce the person despite good-faith efforts.4Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions